Little by little the world is changing. The Daily Beast runs Thaddeus Russell's crushing piece saying that Israel is endangering American lives, in which Russell rediscovers the realist wisdom in the opposition to Partition by Truman's braintrust, including the great George Marshall and the turbulent brainy James V. Forrestal, all of whom predicted no end of trouble.
There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel. In light of this fact, it’s difficult to credibly sustain the argument that Arab terrorism is spawned by Islam’s alleged promotion of violence and antipathy toward American culture or by a “natural” Arab anti-Semitism. It also suggests that no matter what policies Israel enacts to protect itself—even a withdrawal from the occupied territories or a two-state “solution”—it must be a perpetual wartime state.
Is it any wonder that the Beast has to plug two pro-Israel pieces alongside the Russell? Dan Senor and Peter Beinart-- both of whom have worked for AIPAC. Though yes, in fairness, Beinart wants Obama to keep up pressure on Netanyahu to bring about the "possibility of a democratic Zionist state." That's as much of a dream as a Palestinian state, isn't it? And notice how Beinart's construction acknowledges as much. Beinart is coming around! Non-Zionists must ask, What has happened to our country? And how long will it take us to come to our senses?
While there is obvious truth to this, that no terrorist attack was made against Americans before 1968, Americans only have themselves to blame for those that are killed as a result fo imvading and destoying other countries.
O/T comment on James Forrestal – as secretary of the Navy in WWII, he tried to courtmartial McCain’s grandfather over Typhoon Viper and Typhoon Cobra disasters. McCain was saved by his political connections in Washington.
I learned this term “hasbara” from reading Mondoweiss and am not sure of the exact definition. It seems to me that Beinart and the J Street group are maybe a form of hasbara: Another proIsrael commenter taking up a lot of space and another proIsrael lobby getting attention, with the new tack of quibbling a bit about Israeli policies but the real intention is to take up the space, sort of a shell game.
“I learned this term “hasbara” from reading Mondoweiss and am not sure of the exact definition”
There is no reason for using an Israeli term for it when it’s nothing but the same old propaganda.
link to en.wikipedia.org
In it’s simplest form ‘public diplomacy’ or propaganda – depending on your viewpoint. Given Israel’s propensity for untruth I go with the second interpretation.
‘Hasbara spam alert’
link to guardian.co.uk
If you’re interested in a more in-depth look Richard Silverstein did a series of pieces in 2009 on the 116 page hasbara manual issued by The Israel Project called the “Global Language Dictionary”:
‘THE ISRAEL PROJECT’S SECRET HASBARA HANDBOOK EXPOSED’
link to richardsilverstein.com
The download link in Silverstein’s article appears broken but you can d/l a copy of the PDF here:
link to australiansforpalestine.com
Not sure what to make of the Russell piece. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown’s husband Harold Evans called the Goldstone Report “a moral atrocity” and they’re both notorious NYC sycophants.
“A moral atrocity: Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel by Harold Evans”
link to guardian.co.uk
the unemployment office should add another bulletpoint to its list of “why I don’t have an income-producing way to spend my time”:
~ I mondoweiss
There is so much to learn about our mondo and the weiss or not-so-wise ways it is being used.
Thanks for all the informed essays and for the even richer comments.
Vindicating Goldstone, Israel is now getting around to charging a few token troops for their war crimes in Gaza, except that they are being charged with misdemeanors, not war crimes.
“Not sure what to make of the Russell piece. …they’re both notorious NYC sycophants”
Just so. They are both rats. Of the kind that keeps a finger in the wind and ready to jump ship.
Not a bad sign.
I just watched a speech addressing “The Future of the Catholic Church in the 21st Century” by John Allen, who reports from the Vatican on Catholic affairs.
To illustrate the point that “”Genius of the Catholic church has been the ability of the Church to cobble together both-and solutions to either-or problems,” and the psychology that interferes with problem solving in preference for sustaining the fight, Allen told a story (parable?) about a New York City lawyer who was on a hunting vacation in Kansas.
It was the lawyer-hunter’s last day; he’d been unsuccessful so far; finally, he sighted a bird of prey, took careful aim, and shot the bird. Rushing to the place where it fell, the lawyer discovered that the bird was inside a farmer’s fence that was clearly marked, No Trespassing.
Deciding that the bird belonged to HIM, the lawyer started to climb over the fence when the farmer appeared. “What do you think you’re doing,” said the farmer; “that’s my property. Stay off.”
“But that’s my bird,” retorted the lawyer. “If you prevent me from taking what belongs to me, I’ll sue you from now until the end of time.”
“Well sir,” said the farmer, “around here, we solve problems like this with the Three Kicks rule.”
“What’s the Three Kicks rule,” asked the lawyer.
“We each get to kick the other three times,” explained the farmer. “We take turns, three kicks each, until someone gives up. Last man standing gets the bird.”
The lawyer eyed the old, dirt-covered farmer and figured he could win the contest. “OK,” he said; “take your best three kicks.”
The old farmer landed one muddy boot to the shins, decking the lawyer. He followed with a second muddy boot to the solar plexus, knocking the wind out of the bird’s owner. A third kick to the lawyer’s chin brought on stars and a dazed glaze.
The lawyer struggled to gather his strength and fight, pulled himself to his feet and said, “Now it’s my turn.”
“Don’t bother,” said the farmer. “You can have the bird.”
The moral of the story is, of course, that sometimes — most of the time — it’s not about the prize but about the fight.
Russell wrote, “Israelis who would rather live in perpetual war than leave the land they say belongs to them,” even as Jews in the US live in peace and prosperity.
It’s no longer about the bird, it’s about kicking the other guy.